All of the above refer to the original Torah and Gospel, which do not exist, since the Israelites have edited them. If the originals were not edited, there would've been no need for the Quran. The Quran was revealed in order to correct the manipulations the Israelites did to their holy books. This can be clearly seen in verses like,

and

Thus, the Quran, being a confirmation of what was reveled before it, as quoted in 3:3 above, does not mean that it confirms all of it and therefore cannot be said to abrogate it, as the writer seems to be arguing. The Quran abrogated the editions made by the Israelites and upholds the original teachings.

For the same reason, the commands referred to in 5:43, 5:47 and 5:68 above are rhetorical. They are challenges from God to the people of the Torah and Gospel to produce the original scriptures, free of manual edits. This is the significance of the ending "وما أنزل إليكم من ربكم" (and what has been sent down to you from your Lord), i.e., the divine content, not the man-made one!

All of the above refer to the original Torah and Gospel, which do not exist, since the Israelites have edited them. If the originals were not edited, there would've been no need for the Quran. The Quran was revealed in order to correct the manipulations the Israelites did to their holy books. This can be clearly seen in verses like,

...the commands referred to in 5:43, 5:47 and 5:68 above are rhetorical. They are challenges from God to the people of the Torah and Gospel to produce the original scriptures, free of manual edits. This is the significance of the ending "وما أنزل إليكم من ربكم" (and what has been sent down to you from your Lord), i.e., the divine content, not the man-made one!

In his book, النسخ بين الإثبات والنفي, Farghali defends the interpretation of آية in 2:106 as a verse of the Quran by citing the circumstances of its revelation, as mentioned by Ar-Raazi and Al-Aloosi. They said that the circumstances of revelation of this verse were that the Jews (or the polytheists - they weren't sure) accused the Prophet (PBUH) of changing his mind often and quickly! They said he orders his fellows one thing then forbids it and says something today which he retracts the next day. They argued that he makes up the Quran and it contradicts itself. That was also the charge of orientalists.

Farghali acknowledges that the grammar of the verse clearly shows it's a conditional statement. That abrogation may occur. But then says that the circumstances of its revelation make it clear that the probability became a fact. He also said, on page 56, that the generality of the verse makes it reasonable to conclude that the word means any sign of God, but that the circumstances of revelation makes it clear it can only mean a verse of the Quran.

I looked up this narration in the go-to book on circumstances of revelation, أسباب نزول القرآن للواحدي. It is not attributed to the Prophet PBUH or to his fellows. It is mentioned, without a narration chain, by exegesis books! It was mentioned most often in conjunction with 16:101, rather than 2:106. The editor of the book, Kamaal Basyooni Zaghlool, confirms that the narration is without a narrator chain.

Farghali based his entire defense, on pages 53-56, on a narration no one knows who said it.

I looked up this narration in the go-to book on circumstances of revelation, أسباب نزول القرآن للواحدي. It is not attributed to the Prophet PBUH or to his fellows. It is mentioned, without a narration chain, by exegesis books! It was mentioned most often in conjunction with 16:101, rather than 2:106. The editor of the book, Kamaal Basyooni Zaghlool, confirms that the narration is without a narrator chain.

Farghali based his entire defense, on pages 53-56, on a narration no one knows who said it.

I have also been persuaded that the 16:101 is talking about the Quran replacing older scriptures.

Aly Hassaballah in his book "Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence" (أصول التشريع الإسلامي), pages 313-315 with a preamble starting at page 311, demolished the interpretation of 16:101 that supports the abrogation doctrine, and I mean demolished. He interpreted it seamlessly as talking about the Quran replacing previous revelations, with indisputable evidence based on chronology and the surrounding verses. Many points to mention, but an original point in substantiating that 16:101 was in response to the Mecca atheists accusations about Islam being a forgery (Islam as a whole, before any Quranic verse or, for that matter, religious ruling was ever claimed replaced or abrogated) was comparing the following verses:

");
}//-->

piece by piece to 16:101 and the surrounding verses. Pretty conclusive.

As he sets out to interpret 2:106, Aly Hassaballah in his book "Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence" (أصول التشريع الإسلامي) says on page 316 that the verse's use of "مِثْلِها" rather than repeating the preposition and saying "بِمِثْلِها" has a reason that will become apparent in his interpretation of the verse, but I couldn't find anything that addresses it. I am intrigued, but left wondering.

Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب interprets 2:106 pretty much as the pro-abrogation scholars have, while he is decidedly anti-abrogation! He ignores completely that the verse is a conditional construct and repeatedly says that abrogation did occur because 2:106 said so.

He also is adamant that the word آية can only mean a verse of the Quran. He bases his confidence, ironically, on the context of the verse. But the context clearly tells that the people of the Book (mostly Jews) and the polytheists resented that people other than them received a heavenly revelation. This was stated unambiguously in the very preceding verse, 2:105! Afaana rejects completely Al-Asfahaani's explanation of آية as scripture, which is the correct interpretation based on the context.

The strange thing is that he does all that in order to support his main thesis of the book: that abrogation in the Quran was finished before the Quran was written down in "its final form" which the Prophet (PBUH) left with his daughter Fatima and his wife Hafsa. That was what Abu-Bakr and Uthmaan, may God have been pleased with them, preserved and it is the Quran as we know it. The verses which were abrogated, Afaana explains, were abrogated in words and ruling and replaced by verses that ended up written in the bound volume of the Quran. He calls for evidence narrations, most of which are inauthentic and the rest are susceptible to interpretation.

But he correctly states that those abrogated verses, some of which we don't even know, are of no consequence or relevance to us, because the "permanent edition" of the Quran is what counts. He used the parable of editions of a book by its author multiple times and justified it for the Quran by saying that the early era of Islam was transitional and dynamic and therefore had to use temporary rulings.

He arrived at the right conclusion: that there are no abrogated verses in the Quran that we know. But he based that on a shaky ground.

Official interpretation of the Supreme Islamic Council of Egypt:...Translation: They ask you, Muhammad, to bring them the miracles which Moses brought and the prophets of the Children of Israel. It is sufficient for Us that We supported you with the Quran. When We leave out supporting a latter prophet with miracles of a former prophet, or We cause people to forget the effects of such miracle, We bring at his hands a better or similar miracle proving his truthfulness, as God is over everything powerful.

Thus, their interpretation has nothing to do with abrogation, but instead with signs of prophethood. The sign of Muhammad (PBUH), the Quran, is better than all former signs.

I watched a YouTube video last night, of a religious lesson given by the late Sheikh Al-Shaarawi, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCK-_uEI6zY, in which he made the exact same interpretation. It was, therefore, surprising that right afterward, he reverted to the traditional pro-abrogation talking points! Although in discussing the 8:66/8:65 abrogation claim, he acknowledged that 8:66 starts out with the contingency for it; namely, that Muslims had weakness that makes their compliance with 8:65 too hard. Yet, he called the claim an example of naskh nonetheless.

Afaana, in his book الرأي الصواب في منسوخ الكتاب, page 19, states that verse 2:106 is certain in its indication (قطعية الدلالة). But that is incorrect, because both words ننسخ and آية carry multiple meanings and have been interpreted in multiple ways by the scholars over the centuries.

On page 21, he limits the definition of آية to a verse in the Quran. He tries to back it up by saying that the verse's use of the verb ننسها confirms that آية cannot mean a miracle or a law! What is the connection? Miracles can and have been forgotten and laws too. Then he quotes a narration attributed to Al-Hasan, presumably Al-Basri, in which he said,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum